BEFORE: LIVELY Circuit Judge; and PHILLIPS and PECK, Senior Circuit Judges. Order In this appeal from a jury conviction for income tax evasion the defendant contends that the district court erred in denying his motion in limine in which he sought a ruling from the trial court that if he testified at the trial no cross-examination would be permitted with respect to his past convictions. After hearing the motion the district court ruled that evidence of a conviction within ten years would be permitted in cross-examination, limited to the issue of credibility of the defendant. In so ruling the district court found that the previous conviction involved dishonesty and thus it was not necessary to weigh the probative value of such evidence against its prejudicial effect. The defendant's attorney also sought to ask prospective jurors on voir dire whether they would prejudge an accused because of a prior conviction. The district court declined to permit this question on voir dire but did ask whether the prospective jurors could follow an instruction to the effect that evidence of a past conviction could only be used to discredit a witness. The defendant also contends that the district court erred in considering unsubstantiated charges contained in a pre-sentence report.